4/4/2014

After this week’s Supreme Court campaign finance decision based on the First Amendment right to free political speech, Harry Reid immediately exercised his own right to free political speech,

“The Supreme Court today just accentuated what they did on Citizens United, which is a decision that is one of the worst decisions in the history of that court,” the Nevada Democrat said. “All it does is take away people’s rights because, as you know, the Koch brothers are trying to buy America.”

This was followed by exercising his right to mad tweeting,

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling gives even more power to the wealthiest few who are trying to buy our democracy, like the Koch Brothers.”

55 Responses to “The Favor of Big Money Donors”

After this week’s Supreme Court campaign finance decision based on the First Amendment right to free political speech, Harry Reid immediately exercised his own right to free political speech,

One would think that that would leave a mark, but it doesn’t; the Distinguished Gentleman from Nevada would have to have a sense of shame to be embarrassed by that, but there is no particular evidence that he does.

But the Democrats’ concern isn’t freedom of speech, and never has been. Rather, they are still bemoaning the rise of the internet, and talk radio, which have allowed conservative messages to reach the public without having to go through the gatekeepers of the professional media. They know that, if campaign expenditures were limited, the professional media, whose message is unrelenting liberalism, would be a far greater part of the discussion.

not sure I see the point- except for the hedge fund guys, none of the entities on this list is an “individual” which is what the SC decision is about. So I don’t understand why this list shows that Harry Reid’s statement (though I disagree with it) is hypocritical.

IMO, the main issue is who/what are the big donors to who, not so much is the donor an individual, a corporation, a 501(c)4, a 501(c)5, or whatever.
If the issue is follow the money to see where there is influence, follow all of the money, not cherry picking to make your side look good.

Koch Bros. are effective, that’s what rankles the likes of the lying Harry Reid. They serve as the target for the Left’s pathological need for Two Minutes of Hate. Reid is a prime practitioner of that ridiculously moronic exercise.

Uh, actually the name Dana is unisex. Not to rain on the parade but is there actual evidence as to Dana’s gender? If Dana has already clarified this point in previous posts then I apologize as I’m not always able to read the blog every day.

“”””(Two points: The first GOP donation comes in at #8, and note the trend in GOP groups)””””

Regarding the second point, Dana, could be missing it but what exactly is the trend?

I understood the first point, that Dems contributors outdonate their GOP counterparts. That’s life. At present nothing much can be done about it.

Clearly, the job description of the Senate Majority Leader includes dishonest hackjob smears of civilians that have the temerity to exercise their 1st Amendment Rights. Heaven for is he do something like pass a budget more than once every five years.

…The author, Reid Wilson, interviewed “Democratic strategists who deal frequently with high-dollar donors,” and these Democratic strategists told him, strategically, that their high-dollar donors are better than Republican ones. “For the Koch brothers, electing the right candidate can mean a financial windfall,” Wilson wrote. “Democratic donors revolve more around social issues.” On the one hand you have petty, greedy rich men, and on the other you have committed liberals willing to sacrifice for causes they believe in. The morality play writes itself.

Considering how many self-identifying conservatives smugly brag to us here at the blog about how they have already switched their voter registration to “independent” or “unaffilliated,” and how they brag about not showing up to vote in the GOP primaries, we shouldn’t be surprised that the Democrats are actually the party of big donors.

After all, they actually want to win.
That’s why they vote.
You know, like in primaries, and stuff !
Or whatever !

It all really depends on what a person believes is at stake.
I believe our nation’s future is at stake—our country cannot survive with multiple generations of voters who believe that government is the solution to our problems. We need to stop the bleeding right now by electing a conservative who will show everyone that conservative policies are ‘the light.’
And as a high-income earner, I also believe my personal nest egg is at stake.

Some people are happy to sit back and allow other people to determine the course of the country.
Not me.
I’m voting in the primaries for the most conservative candidate whom I believe can win.
As of now, I believe that person may be Jindal, Rubio, Walker, Cruz, et al.

Who is the big social conservative money bags, the left made it look like it was Scaife, but really he was focused on defense and economics, RMS was the Kochgoat of his day, it was in imitation of that phantom that Soros created his network,

Umm, not sure who made such comments, but in some states there are open primaries and the registration doesn’t matter. In other states, such as PA, the presidential primaries are so late it hasn’t made a difference in my lifetime. I’m actually registered Dem, because the only elections that mean much in Philly are the Dem primaries.

e.s.- i can see your point about primary voting in red states, but in the most bluest states, indy’s like myself sometimes vote for the least screwed up dem, because the republicans can’t field a candidate.

I was listening to some people chatting away today at lunch — all of them of the left — and it was blah, blah, blah, evil Koch, blah, blah, blah, Koch is power hungry, blah, blah, blah, the Supreme Court’s decision is horrible and wealthy dirtbags like David Koch should be tarred and feathered. Blah, blah, blah.

It was amusing (and disgusting) having to hear such rhetoric. I was tempted to barge in and say something like, Who the hell are you people to be making such statements when a fanatic leftist billionaire like George Soros is pulling the strings far more than anything being done by the Koch’s!

In the thread on Michael Hiltzik I posted a synopsis on why a reputable psychiatrist back in 2008 diagnosed the liberalism of various people as being similar to mental illness. I think it is.

IMO, the main issue is who/what are the big donors to who, not so much is the donor an individual, a corporation, a 501(c)4, a 501(c)5, or whatever.

Corporations are not allowed to contribute to candidate’s campaign funds for federal elections, and it has been that way since 1907. in some states they can give limited aounts. Otherwise all contributions have to be from individuals, and maybe from some collections of funds.

What that list is is of who was listed as the employer by the individuals contributing.

I think the worst kinds of contributions are thoise from groups, and the next worest is when somebody “bundles” money (brings a whole bunch of contributions he solicited to a candidate all at one time and gets credit fro the whole thing more or less)

The best kind of of an individual, who can have 1,000 reasons for giving and who is replaceable.

Not that my interests and those of big donors are likely to coincide, I think allowing gifts to a larger, targeted group of individuals rather than dumping whole sums into super-PAC black holes is probably a good thing.